Field Methods

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (OnlineFirst[PDF])
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
1525822X08317069v1
20/3/211    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Göritz, A. S
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
First published on April 29, 2008, doi:10.1177/1525822X08317069

Field Methods 2008;20:211.

A more recent version of this article appeared on August 1, 2008
© 2008 SAGE Publications

Article

The Long-Term Effect of Material Incentives on Participation in Online Panels

Anja S Göritz*

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: anja.goeritz{at}wiso.uni-erlangen.de.


   Abstract
A five-wave experiment examined the influence of incentives on response in online panels. One group of panelists was sent an advance gift after registering with the panel; the other group did not receive a gift. For participating in the studies, half of the panelists were repeatedly offered redeemable loyalty points. The others were offered inclusion in cash lotteries. At the outset, the advance gift significantly increased participation, but this effect dwindled linearly throughout the waves of the study. Initially, there was no difference in response between people with loyalty points and those offered to be included in the cash lottery. Over time, however, loyalty points relative to the cash lotteries became more attractive. In wave 1, the advance gift was especially useful when combined with the lottery. This effect faded in the course of the longitudinal study. Low-income panelists were more susceptible to the advance gift.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?